Very generous of all to share experiences.
As I said, no issues with tripods and mirror up etc and I would expect the same with a higher resolution back. I was concerned that the gain I expected from the H series, better dampening, programmed shutter delay, maybe ergonomics which in theory, and it appears some see in practice which is reassuring, would help in getting sharp(ish) handheld work may be negated by going up in sensor resolution.
Richard, you are correct, and no arguments, tripod is the way to go, always has been, even to get the best out of 35mm. But sometimes it just isn't possible or desirable. Again I know no one camera is best at everything but it is nice if they can be pushed out of envelope and still give acceptable results.
I think we have established that technique is critical ( but think we knew that and just needed reminding) and technology, which viewing system, prism 90 finder etc. plays a part for the V.
I must gently disagree with John and Brian who support the "no difference" camp I think the H advances in technology should make a difference but am willing to be told they don't and that they are correct there is no difference. But neither can quote H experience. Brian, I have files full of sharp negs from the V and really can't tell which are tripod or not, perhaps I should go back to film, and that is serious I shoot an M2 with great pleasure.
Again that is the essence of the enquiry. Is the H "better" than the V handheld and supplementary if it is, is that negated by using a more "sensitive to poor technique" higher res back?
Doug, it is easy, as you say, too easy to slip into obsessing over sharpness and technique, especially to the detriment of content. Much of HCB's work is soft, as you would expect from his early work given the film stock available but he didn't suffer. It is probably true that the £6500 could be spent on attending workshops, location shoots etc to more benefit but the itch is there and needs treatment.